# Stamp Venders Association v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2000) 3 ILRA 182
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/stamp-venders-association-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-39659
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000

182
time may be granted to the petitioner to
vacate the building in question, as at once
it will not be possible for him to arrange
another accommodation to carry on the
business which is being carried on in the
building in question. On the order hand,
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
contesting respondents submitted that the
petitioner being only a sub-tenant of the
building in question, is legally not entitled
to any leniency in the matter. He is to be
ejected at once but with a view to end the
litigation between the parties, he stated
that he will have no objection if 8 months'
time is granted to the petitioner to vacate
the building in question subject to the
condition
petitioner
furnishes
an
undertaking in writing before the trial
Court within a period of 15 days from
today to the effect that immediately on
expiry of the aforesaid time, he shall hand
over
the
vacant
possession
to
the
respondent no.1 and shall also pay the
amount of damages for the period he
remains in occupation of the same, at the
rate he was paying to the respondents no.2
and 3.

10. In view of the aforesaid facts
and circumstances, it is hereby directed
the petitioner shall not be ejected from the
building in question for a period of 8
months from today subject to the
condition he furnishes an undertaking in
writing within 15 days from today before
the trial Court that he shall vacate the
building in question and hand over the
vacant possession to the respondent no.1
and also pay the amount of damages for
the period he remain in occupation of the
same at the rate he was paying to the
respondents no.2 and 3, failing which this
order shall stand automatically vacated
and law will take its own course.

11. Subject to what has been stated
above, the writ petition fails and is hereby
dismissed, but no order as to costs.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$' 6(3
'$7(' $//$+$%$' 6(3
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( %,12' .80$5 52< -
7+( +21·%/( %,12' .80$5 52< -
7+( +21·%/( /$.6+0, %,+$5, -
7+( +21·%/( /$.6+0, %,+$5, -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

6WDPS 9HQGHUV $VVRFLDWLRQ «3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
7KH
6WDWH RI 83 WKURXJK WKH &KLHI
6HFUHWDU\
&LYLO
6HFUHWDULDW
83
/XFNQRZ DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL %1 3DWKDN
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6PW 6DULWD 6LQJK
6&

&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD $UWLFOH DQG
25HDVRQDEOH
5HVWULFWLRQV2LQ
3XEOLF
LQWHUHVW HQKDQFHPHQW RI OLPLW RI VWDPS
IURP
5V
WR
5V
VXEVHTXHQWO\
UHGXFHG
UHVWULFWLRQV
FRQILQHG RQO\ ZLWK WKH VWDPS RI 5V
 DQG QRW RQ RWKHUV2UHVWULFWLRQ
HPSRVHG LQ SXEOLF LQWHUHVW LQ RUGHU WR
DYRLGH IUDQGXOHQW XVH DQG PLVXVH RI
VWDPS SDSHUV2QRW DUELWUDU\
+HOG2
7KH
DPHQGPHQW
PDGH
LV
FOHDUO\
SHUPLVVLEOH XQGHU $UWLFOH RI WKH
&RQVWLWXWLRQ
EHLQJ
LQ
WKH
LQWHUHVW
RI
μJHQHUDO SXEOLF¶ LPSRVLQJ D UHDVRQDEOH
UHVWULFWLRQ
ZKLOH
SHUPLWWLQJ
VDOH
RI
VWDPSV ZRUWK WR WKH H[WHQW RI 5V
RQO\ WR WKH 6WDPS 9HQGRUV XQGHU WKH
SURYLVLRQV
RI
WKH
6WDPS
ODZV
7KH
OLFHQVHG VWDPS YHQGHUV KDYH QRW EHHQ
3All] Stamp Venders Association V. State of U.P. and others 183

GHSULYHG IURP FDUU\LQJ RI WKHLU WUDGH RU
EXVLQHVV VHFXUHG XQGHU $UWLFOH J
2QO\
D
UHVWULFWLRQ
KDV EHHQ LPSRVHG
ZKLFK LV QRW DUELWUDU\ :H KROG WKDW WKH
DPHQGPHQW ZDV PDGH LQ RUGHU WR DYRLG
IUDXGXOHQW
XVH
DQG
DYRLG
PLVXVH
RI
VWDPS SDSHUV LQ WKH LQWHUHVW RI JHQHUDO
SXEOLF DV
WKH LQFRPH RI WKH UHYHQXH RI
WKH VWDWH LV SXEOLF UHYHQXH ZKLFK LV EHLQJ
VSHQW IRU WKH LQWHUHVW RI WKH JHQHUDO
SXEOLF
:H ILQG WKH JURXQGV GHYRLG RI
DQ\ VXEVWDQFH 3DUD
&DVHV ODZ GLVFXVVHG
 6&&2
$,5 6&
$,5 6&

By the Court

Whether the proviso added to Rule
156
of
U.P.
Stamp
Rules,
1942
(hereinafter referred to as the Rules)
ultravires Articles 19(1)(G) and 21 of the
Constitution of India is the solitary
question which requires our adjudication
in this writ petition filed by the Stamp
Vendors Association, Varanasi with two
prayers (I) to quash the proviso added to
Rule 156 aforesaid and (ii) to command
the Respondents to allow the stamp
vendors to sell stamp papers of any
denomination available in the Treasury
within the limits of their licence.

2. Rule 156 of the Rules before the
impugned amendment read as follows:-
"Sale of stamps to non-official vendors
weekly:-Licensed
vendors
shall
be
allowed to purchase stamps from the local
or branch depot ordinarily once a week
equal to their estimated demand for one
week, based on the average sales of the
last few weeks. If after a weekly
purchase, the sales of any vendor have
been heavy and his stock have run short
within the week, he shall be allowed to
purchase on any other day of the week
when the treasury is open, equal to the
probable consumption for the remaining
part of the week."

2.1. By the impugned amendment at
the end of this Rule following proviso has
been added:-

"Provided that a stamp paper exceeding
the value of two thousand rupees shall not
be supplied to the licensed vendor."

3. The petitioner asserts, interalia,
that earlier the licensed stamp vendors
were allowed to sell stamps not exceeding
the aggregate value of Rs.5000/- for one
document, vesting powers in the Collector
of the district to raise that limit to any
higher limit, subsequently by the 40th
Amendment that limit was raised to Rs.
8000/- conferring jurisdiction in the
Board of Revenue to issue a licence in a
special circumstance for any higher limit;
non-judicial stamps of 23 denominations
ranging between 25 paisa to Rs.5 lacs
were being printed and available but in
1991 under the orders of the Ministry of
Finance,
Department
of
Economic
Affairs, New Delhi the number of
denominations of non-judicial stamps
were reduced to 10 and the remaining 13
denominations, including of Rs.2 lac and
Rs.3 lacs, were discontinued it has also
been mentioned in the Circular dated
16.9.1991 that the Government has
decided to introduce non-judicial stamps
of
Rs.10,000/-,Rs.20,2000/-
and
Rs.25,000/- denominations; there was no
restriction on the stamp vendors that they
will sell stamp papers of particular
denomination only ; in April, 1993 a theft
took place during railway transit from
Central Stamp Department, Nasik Road to
Railway Head in U.P. of Rs.5000/-
denominations non-judicial stamps and in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000

184
order to avoid abuse of those stolen stamp
papers a ban was imposed for sale of nonjudicial
stamps
of
Rs.5000/-
denomination with effect from 18.4.1993
and instructing the District Registrars and
the Sub-Registrars not to register any
document
executed
of
Rs.5000/-
denomination non-judicial stamps on or
after that date; this ban, however , was
relaxed vide order dated 6.10.1994 on this
condition
that
stamp
of
Rs.5000/-
denomination shall be sold from the
Treasury only directly to the purchaser
and not through any stamp vendor;
meanwhile the amended Rules were
introduced permitting the licensed stamp
vendors to sell Court-fee stamps and nonjudicial stamps upto an aggregate Value
of Rs.15,000/- for one document or
instrument to an individual member of the
public;
and
that
stamp
exceeding
Rs.2000/- shall not be supplied to the
licensed vendors, meaning thereby that
the stamp vendors shall sell stamp papers
upto Rs.2000 denominations only for the
reasons of shortage of stamps, sale of
forged stamp papers, theft of stamps, sale
of stamp by stamp vendors of higher rates
and artificial shortage of the stamp
papers.

3.1. The petitioner challenges the
aforementioned amended Rule on the
ground that it has been made without
application of mind and without looking
into the fact that stamp papers of
Rs.2000/- and Rs.3000/- denominations
have already been discontinued by the
Government of India; that forged stamp
papers worth lacs of rupees have been
found in the Sub Treasury, Amethi itself
as per the Enquiry Report of the Collector
of District Sultanpur ; that the restrictions
imposed are wholly unreasonable, illegal
and
unwarranted;
and
that
lot
of
inconveniences are being faced not only
by the stamp vendors but also by the
general public as Treasury Challan is
required to be filled up and submitted in
the Treasury upto 1.30 P.M. only for
which there is a long queue due to heavy
rush at the Treasury .

4. In the Counter Affidavit, which
has been sworn by the Treasury Officer,
Varanasi, it has been stated, interalia, that
judicial
stamps
of
Rs.
3000/-
denomination were not discontinued and
are available; that a licensed vendor was
allowed to sell Court-fee stamps and nonjudicial stamps upto an aggregate value of
Rs.15,000/-
for
one
document
or
instrument
vide
Notification
dated
13.6.1994 and only the non-judicial
stamps of the value of Rs.2000/- and
3000/- denominations were discontinued;
that
after
thoughtful
consideration
restrictions were imposed in order to
avoid misuse and fraudulent use of stamp
papers in the interest of the revenue of the
State; that a reasonable restriction can
always be imposed in the interest of
public revenue; that the grounds are
wholly
misconceived,
irrelevant
and
baseless; and as the writ petition is
misconceived it is thus liable to be
dismissed with cost..

5. A Rejoinder Affidavit has also
been filed reiterating the correctness of
some of the statements made in the writ
petition repeating that the impugned
amendment
is
absolutely
illegal,
unwarranted and unjustified and thus the
writ petition be allowed with cost.

The Submissions:-

6. Sri B.N. Pathak, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner,
3All] Stamp Venders Association V. State of U.P. and others 185

contended
that
the
stamp
vendor's
fundamental right of trade guaranteed
under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution
of India as well as their right to have a
meaningful life guaranteed under Article
21 of the Constitution of India stands
breached
by
the
amended

Rule
aforementioned. He, however, did not
cite
any
decision
to
support
his
submission.

7. Learned Advocate General Sri
R.P. Goyal, assisted by Smt Sarita Singh
Standing Counsel, on the other hand,
contended that apart from the State the
petitioner has come up stating the
backdrop justifying the amended Rule and
there is no question of breach of their
fundamental
rights
as
enshrined
in
Articles
19(1)(g)
and
21
of
the
Constitution of India for the simple reason
that only a partial restriction has been
imposed and that, too, in the interest of
the Revenue of the State which is a public
purpose to prevent squandering the public
money revenue. No decision was either
cited by the learned Advocate General in
support of his submission.

Our Findings:-

8. Article 19(1) and its sub-clause
(g) of the Constitution of India read thus:-
 "

"19(1) All citizens shall have the
right"
x x x

"(g) to practice any profession or to carry
on any occupation, trade or business"

9. Article 21 of the Constitution of
India reads thus:-

"21. Protection of life and personal
liberty:- No person shall be deprived of
his
life
or
personal
liberty
except
according to procedure established by
law."

10. Article 19(6) of the Constitution
of India reads thus:-

"Nothing in sub-clause (g) of the said
clause shall affect the operation of any
existing law in so far as it imposes, or
prevent the State from making any law
imposing in the interest of the general
public reasonable restrictions on the
exercise of the right conferred by the said
sub-clause and in particular nothing in the
said sub-clause shall affect the operation
of any existing law in so far as it relates to
or prevent the State from making any law
relating to,"

(i) the
professional
or
technical
qualifications necessary for practising any
profession or carrying on any occupation,
trade or business, or

(ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a
Corporation owned or controlled by State,
of any trade, business, industry or service,
whether to the exclusion, complete or
partial,
of
citizens
or
otherwise."
(Underling is by us)

On a bare perusal of sub-clause 6
aforesaid it is crystal clear that sub clause
(g) could not have prevented the State
from
imposing
reasonable
restriction
while amending Rule 156 of the Stamp
Rules in the interest of the general public.
It is further clear that for the same
purpose
exclusion
---partial
or
complete-or otherwise of citizen is also
permissible.
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000

186
11. Let us now refresh the ratio laid
down by the Apex Court of the Country
while interpreting Article 19(1)(g) vis-àvis 19(6) of the Constitution.

If one understands correctly the ratio
laid down in M/s Fedco versus S.N.
Bilgramai A.I.R. 1960 SC 415 prevention
of fraud stands comprised within the
phraseology expressed in Article 19(6) of
the Constitution.

Further as per Steel Controller versus
Manik Chand A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 935;
Rarnandez
versus
Deputy
Chief
Controller A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1208 and
Nagendra versus Commissioner A.I.R.
1958 S.C. 398 it is clear that the right to
sell the stamps is created by grant of a
licence under the Indian Stamp Act and
the Rules framed by our State under that
Act and thus the exercise of the right to
sell the stamps is subject to the terms and
conditions imposed by the Statute and no
fundamental
right
is
infringed
by
imposition of terms and condition. In
State of Orissa versus Radhey Shyam
(1995) I.S.C.C. 652 it was laid down that
business interest of an individual can be
overridden by the Government policy in
the public interest.

12. In sale of the stamps public
interest is apparently involved. From the
facts pleaded by the Petitioner it is clear
that the limit of Rs.5,000/- was enhanced
to Rs.8,000/- but now it has been lowered.
The
amendment
made
is
clearly
permissible under Article 19(6) of the
Constitution being in the interest of
'general public' imposing a reasonable
restriction
while
permitting
sale
of
Stamps worth to the extent of Rs.2,000/-
only to the Stamp Vendors under the
provisions of the Stamp Laws. The
licensed stamp vendors have not been
deprived from carrying on their trade or
business secured under Article 19(1)(g) .
Only a restriction has been imposed
which is not arbitrary., We hold that the
amendment was made in order to avoid
fraudulent use and avoid misuse of stamp
papers in the interest of general public as
the income of the revenue of the State is
public revenue which is being spent for
the interest of the general public. We find
the grounds devoid of any substance.

13. The petitioner has failed to
demonstrate as to how the right to life of
the stamp vendors to have a meaningful
life within the scope of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India has been breached.
It is somewhat surprising to hear that it
tends to deprive the stamp venders right
to have a meaningful life for the reason
that only stamps of high denominations
have been restrained to be sold to the
licensed stamp vendors. We are of the
firm view that the amendment was made
in the interest of general public without
breaching Article 21 of the Constitution
of India.

14. Accordingly, we dismiss this
writ petition, but without cost.

15. The office is directed to hand
over a copy of this order within one week
to the learned Advocate General for its
intimation to the authority concerned.
Petition Dismissed.
3All] Ram Autar Singh V. State of U.P. and others 187

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%
7+( +21·%/( '66,1+$ -
/( '66,1+$ -
7+( +21·%/( '(9 .$17 75,9(', -
7+( +21·%/( '(9 .$17 75,9(', -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI
5DP $XWDU 6LQJK VRQ RI 6UL 7DIVL /DO
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 WKURXJK +RPH 6HFUHWDU\
DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 9LMDL 6LQKD
6KUL 9LMDL %DKDGXU
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
6KUL +3 7ULSDWKL

$UWLFOH RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD
WKH TXHVWLRQ RI TXDQWXP RI SXQLVKPHQW
KDV
WR
EH
GHFLGHG E\ WKH SXQLVKLQJ
DXWKRULW\ DQG WKLV &RXUW LQ H[HUFLVH RI LWV
H[WUD RUGLQDU\ MXULVGLFWLRQ VKRXOG QRW
LQWHUIHUH ZLWK WKH LPSXJQHG RUGHU RQ WKH
JURXQG RI DGHTXDF\ RU
LQDGHTXDF\ RI
WKH SXQLVKPHQW
+HOG
&RXUW LQ H[HUFLVH RI LWV H[WUDRUGLQDU\
GLVFUHWLRQDU\ MXULVGLFWLRQ XQGHU $UWLFOH
 RI WKH FRQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD VKRXOG
QRW LQWHUIHUH ZLWK WKH LPSXJQHG RUGHU RQ
WKH JURXQG RI DGHTXDF\ RU LQDGHTXDF\ RI
WKH SXQLVKPHQW SDUD

By the Court

1. Heard Shri Vijai Sinha, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner and
Shri H.P. Tripathi, learned Standing
Counsel of the State of U.P. representing
the respondents No. 1,2,3 and 6.
2. On being found guilty of the
charges of abusing and misbehaving with
his superior officers under the influence
of liquor, the petitioner, an erstwhile
constable of U.P. Police, was dismissed
from service by means of the order dated
17th May, 1988, a copy whereof is
Annexure'5' to the writ petition.

3. The dismissal order dated 17th
May, 1988, was challenged by the
petitioner by filing a claim petition before
the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal,
Lucknow which has been dismissed by
the order and judgment dated 3rd March,
1997, a copy whereof is appended to the
petition as Annexure '6' impugned in this
petition.

4. The grounds of challenge to the
dismissal order before the Tribunal were
and before this Court are that the order
was
passed
without
following
due
procedure
of
law
that
adequate
opportunity for defending himself was not
given to the petitioner and that the order
was passed without application of mind
by the punishing authority.

5. In the context of the above
grounds of challenge the Tribunal has
recorded the following findings:-

"From the perusal of relevant file
which was summoned it is clear that
departmental
enquiry
was
conducted
properly and witnesses were examined.
The petitioner was also given adequate
opportunity to defend himself. There is
nothing on record to prove that there was
any violation of principles of natural
justice or of any provision of Police Act
or Police Regulation. A copy of the
enquiry report was served upon him
alongwith
show
cause
notice
dated